The Other Half is Why Obama Will Win

[barking_iguana]

I talked yesterday about why McCain will lose. I don't claim that it's a certainty, but it's how to bet, even if you don't care.

The other half of the story is why Obama will win. Despite being Black, which is a significant net negative in this generation. May the Obama Presidency help change that.

Anyway, Gore and Kerry lost largely because of their evident resentment of the kind of communication needed in a campaign. Gore was less resentful than Kerry, so Gore did better. Obama is less resentful than either.

People don't like it when you don't embrace communication with them. They interpret it as haughtiness, even if it's the mode of communication that causes the reticence, not the person on the other end. The last Democrat who embraced the campaign and lost a competitive election was Hubert Humphrey. The last Democrat who didn't embrace the campaign and won without already being President is Woodrow Wilson, if anybody.

Comments

[chemoelectric.livejournal.com]

With John Kerry, there is even, to me, the impression that he sorta didn’t mind losing. What’s with that?

Why Obama will lose

[stormlorde.livejournal.com]

By my analysis Obama needs to hold onto the states where he is currently strong, and win one of these three:

Virginia where hes is up 1 but frankly I do not believe he can hold a lead there.

Colorado where he is currently down 1 or,

Florida-If the Dems can win Florida its all over, but Obama is down 2 and Florida is tricksy.

I do not like his chances, although one could certainly dispute my analysis. I am analytically an electoral college guy, I do not pay to much attention to the popular vote.

Be well.

Re: Why Obama will lose

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

1) Why are you ignoring Ohio? His chances there are much better than Florida, and better than Virginia, too, IMO. If he wins Ohio he doesn't need any of the others.

2) Are you sure he's down in Colorado? I think he's 50-50 likely to take Ohio but better than that in Colorado.

3) Relatively large shifts between now and the election are rather likely. If they happen, they will take place nationally or among certain demographic groups that are spread across many states. If either side wins that national popular vote by several points, all the electoral college parsing becomes irrelevant. From simulations run by FiveThirtyEight.com, consider this graph:


4) The number of cell-phone-only users has gone up a lot since 2004. They are disproportionately young and disproportionately Black. Nobody really knows how that is affecting polling.

5) Polling at this stage of the game is also very bad at predicting turnout. The Obama campaign is more massively investing in field offices in order to turn out their vote than any campaign has since the advent of TV-based campaigns. I have long believed that candidates underinvested in field campaigns because their consultants who made the decisions got a cut of all media buys. I hope I (and the Obama campaign, which seems to agree with me at least for their particular circumstances) am right.

Re: Why Obama will lose

[stormlorde.livejournal.com]

I am not ignoring Ohio, He is significantly behind in Ohio, and I sort of threw in FL because he is only 2 points down there and I believe if he wins there he wins. I just do not like his electoral posistioning, although I agree with you that colorado is his best chance in the scenario I listed.

Be well.

Re: Why Obama will lose

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

Where in the world are you getting that he's significantly behind in Ohio? THe latest poll has it as a dead heat. That was a PPP poll completed on 8/13. Quinnipiac had him 2 points up through 7/26. Rasmussen did have McCain 10 points up through 7/21, but most other polls from then showed Obama with a slight lead. Why are you taking the Rasumussen result, which had the smallest asmple size (500), and ignoring all the others?